Although all slaughter is unpleasant, religious slaughter where the animal is not pre stunned, but fully conscious whilst its throat is sliced open, then hoisted up on hooks through it's hind quarters and left for about 10 minutes until it bleeds to death is downright cruel, sadistic and barbaric. If you disagree with this form of slaughter or would like some more information, would you please click the link and sign the petition. Thankshttp://www.gopetition.com/petition/38160.html

I disagree with that kind of slaughtering. If you are a type of person who have concern a lot with animals then you won't disagree with that kind. Honestly, brutal way of killing animals specially if conscious is something that I vehemently disagree. I've seen a lot of videos pertaining to it and I always have this sad feeling.

Greencarz: Try not to jump so quickly to supporting a petition or viewpoint until you checked the facts. Objections against halal slaughter are often based on emotion rather than facts. Why is halal slaughter worse than conventional slaughter (answer: those who want you to sign anti-halal petitions want to end *all* slaughter, this is just a way to get at that)? Fact is, we get emotionally upset because of the seemingly cruel way of halal slaughter, cutting a conscious animal's throat and bleeding it out. But the laws of halal slaughter require probably better treatment of the animal than Western methods: it must be done with a very sharp knife, and not in the presence of other animals, for instance (see http://www.mustaqim.co.uk/halal.htm ). A very sharp cut in itself is not painful, as many humans will know from experience; and cutting the main vessels to the brain will cause unconsciousness very fast. There has been a German study of this : http://www.halalfocus.com/artman2/uploa ... t_1978.pdf is a translation. In addition, in some countries, mild stunning is used before halal slaughter. So before jumping to support what I consider questionable arguments and a petition, think: who is arguing for the petition? Are their arguments sound? For whose benefit?

Last edited by Cobie on Tue Aug 17, 2010 12:33 am, edited 1 time in total.

My understanding (of Jewish Kosher slaughter, at least) is that it is not the cutting of a concious animal's throat with a sharp knife by a qualified, pious person that is objectionable. Rather it is the shackle and hoisting of the animal where the animal is suspended upside down in the air by one chained leg, before it is cut and the length of time the animal is made to wait and (I'm not sure if this is true) that more than one animal may be suspended and have to wait in line to be cut.

The shackle and hoist method as described above is not always used precisely because of the debate in animal welfare (not rights) among the rabbinate and others. Kosher slaughter permits that the animals be restrained upright (e.g. in a standing pen) until the moment of cutting or in a box-like holding pen that inverts the animal so that the cut may be made downward, and then suspending the animal upsidedown to bleed out.

I think in Europe and the US, kosher slaughter is done mainly, if not exclusively, by the restraint method for animal welfare and worker safety. However, in South America, e.g., which is a large, if not the largest, supplier of kosher beef to the US and Israel, the shackle and hoist method is more predominant and is, moreover, endorsed by the Israeli Rabbinate and the US Orthodox Union.

Greencarz: Try not to jump so quickly to supporting a petition or viewpoint until you checked the facts. Objections against halal slaughter are often based on emotion rather than facts. Why is halal slaughter worse than conventional slaughter (answer: those who want you to sign anti-halal petitions want to end *all* slaughter, this is just a way to get at that)? Fact is, we get emotionally upset because of the seemingly cruel way of halal slaughter, cutting a conscious animal's throat and bleeding it out. But the laws of halal slaughter require probably better treatment of the animal than Western methods: it must be done with a very sharp knife, and not in the presence of other animals, for instance (see http://www.mustaqim.co.uk/halal.htm ). A very sharp cut in itself is not painful, as many humans will know from experience; and cutting the main vessels to the brain will cause unconsciousness very fast. There has been a German study of this : http://www.halalfocus.com/artman2/uploa ... t_1978.pdf is a translation. In addition, in some countries, mild stunning is used before halal slaughter. So before jumping to support what I consider questionable arguments and a petition, think: who is arguing for the petition? Are there arguments sound? For whose benefit?

All slaughter is horrible, but with the halal/kosher it is totally cruel and barbaric. Slaughter methods have moved with the times, in the UK in days gone by cattle were smashed over the head with hammers before their throats were slit to render them unconscious, now thankfully we have a stun gun to do this. Tell me, if you were having your throat slashed would you prefer to be fully conscious or stunned first. Please do not call me an animal rights activist nor am I racist, I am a human being who hates any form of animal cruelty.

Many people in the UK are aware of what religious slaughter entails and oonce they discover they are disgusted to learn that they may of consumed it. We are making people aware of this slaughter and for anyone who wishes to know more please join this group http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=111977795499826

I disagree with that kind of slaughtering. If you are a type of person who have concern a lot with animals then you won't disagree with that kind. Honestly, brutal way of killing animals specially if conscious is something that I vehemently disagree. I've seen a lot of videos pertaining to it and I always have this sad feeling.

The real problem within Kosher or Halal slaughter is we preceive the slaughter to be cruel because of the quick draining of blood from the animal. In fact that same blood loss is what severs the pain receptors of the animals brain. Being a Canadian I am quite familiar with such blood loss to hockey players from having throats & arteries severed by skate blades. In such cases the player felt no pain but being human they did understand the loss of blood to be life threatening. Animals do not have that cognition. You might want to read up on NHL goal tender Clint Marlarchuk http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dT4PenDwiPo & his followup interview sescribing the incident. He and this NHL foreward have stated they felt NO pain in the bloodletting but being human they certainly knew the ramifications.. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L3znNVAM ... re=related & his later interview. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t4TySBCE ... re=related

_________________I use red, not because of anger but to define my posts to catch rebuttals latter and it makes the quote feature redundent for me. The rest of you pick your own color.

My understanding (of Jewish Kosher slaughter, at least) is that it is not the cutting of a concious animal's throat with a sharp knife by a qualified, pious person that is objectionable. Rather it is the shackle and hoisting of the animal where the animal is suspended upside down in the air by one chained leg, before it is cut and the length of time the animal is made to wait and (I'm not sure if this is true) that more than one animal may be suspended and have to wait in line to be cut.

This is also my understanding. While the animal is hoisted and slaughtered it is fully conscious and hangs for at least several minutes. It was outlawed as inhumane by the Humane Slaughter Act of 1958 which required that the animal be rendered unconscious before being hoisted and slaughtered. 10% of animals are still killed this way in the US eventhough other methods of kosher slaughter have been developed. However, it is still the main method of kosher ( and Halal?) slaughter outside the US. A summary of Temple Grandin's findings: "Hanging a 1,000 to 1,200-pound animal upside down by one leg unquestionably causes tremendous suffering. It is common that this method causes bruising, torn flesh, and even broken bones. Furthermore, stress levels can be measured empirically through stress hormone (cortisol) levels. Stress levels for inverted slaughter with devices known as the Weinberg pen (which are less stressful than shackling and hoisting) have yielded the highest average stress ratings ever published (almost 300% higher than cattle killed in upright pens)."

The shackle and hoist method as described above is not always used precisely because of the debate in animal welfare (not rights) among the rabbinate and others. Kosher slaughter permits that the animals be restrained upright (e.g. in a standing pen) until the moment of cutting or in a box-like holding pen that inverts the animal so that the cut may be made downward, and then suspending the animal upsidedown to bleed out.

And even the pens are considered inhumane because, "For that matter, some of the pens now being used also violate those laws. As Dr. Regenstein has pointed out in an e-mail to us, the technology of some pens requires that the animal be turned upside down. "The Facoima pen is at best marginal - and is used by at least one major OU facility in the US - although they have now gone from 180 degrees of rotation to 135, degrees .... The UK has moved to [require] upright kill. The Weinberg pen, which is not as well designed as the Facoima pen and also moves the animal upsidedown, is unacceptable." (from same source as above).

I think in Europe and the US, kosher slaughter is done mainly, if not exclusively, by the restraint method for animal welfare and worker safety. However, in South America, e.g., which is a large, if not the largest, supplier of kosher beef to the US and Israel, the shackle and hoist method is more predominant and is, moreover, endorsed by the Israeli Rabbinate and the US Orthodox Union.

And more from The Committee on Jewish Law and Standards

"Now that kosher, humane slaughter using upright pens is both possible and widespread, we find shackling and hoisting to be a violation of Jewish laws forbidding cruelty to animals and requiring that we avoid unnecessary dangers to human life. As the CJLS, then, we rule that shackling and hoisting should be stopped."

And further:

"At Grandin Livestock Systems, we believe that the practice of hanging live cattle and calves upside down should be eliminated."

Greencarz: Try not to jump so quickly to supporting a petition or viewpoint until you checked the facts. Objections against halal slaughter are often based on emotion rather than facts. Why is halal slaughter worse than conventional slaughter (answer: those who want you to sign anti-halal petitions want to end *all* slaughter, this is just a way to get at that)? Fact is, we get emotionally upset because of the seemingly cruel way of halal slaughter, cutting a conscious animal's throat and bleeding it out. But the laws of halal slaughter require probably better treatment of the animal than Western methods: it must be done with a very sharp knife, and not in the presence of other animals, for instance (see http://www.mustaqim.co.uk/halal.htm ). A very sharp cut in itself is not painful, as many humans will know from experience; and cutting the main vessels to the brain will cause unconsciousness very fast. There has been a German study of this : http://www.halalfocus.com/artman2/uploa ... t_1978.pdf is a translation. In addition, in some countries, mild stunning is used before halal slaughter. So before jumping to support what I consider questionable arguments and a petition, think: who is arguing for the petition? Are there arguments sound? For whose benefit?

Quote:

Objections against halal slaughter are often based on emotion rather than facts.

Indeed. But as you and I both know, Cobie, objections from ARs on everything from scientific research to wildlife management techniques to animal husbandry, usually are based on emotions not facts. The appeal to emotion fallacy is the ARs biggest weapon. And a lot of people drink the kool-aid without question.

Objections against halal slaughter are often based on emotion rather than facts.

Indeed. But as you and I both know, Cobie, objections from ARs on everything from scientific research to wildlife management techniques to animal husbandry, usually are based on emotions not facts. The appeal to emotion fallacy is the ARs biggest weapon. And a lot of people drink the kool-aid without question.[/quote]

This may be true for many AR's Grizzly, but as a person concerned about the pain and suffering of animals, often preventable and unnecessary, I am much more interested in the facts than I am the ideology. In other words, I don't really like drinking kool-aid.

Emotion is, I think, related to fact. One can conjure emotion by remembering injuries and one can also have emotional responses to actual events as they are. Emotional responses, when they are simultaneous and reflective of the event(s) as it/they are happening, are real. They are the partner of logic.

Greencarz: Try not to jump so quickly to supporting a petition or viewpoint until you checked the facts. Objections against halal slaughter are often based on emotion rather than facts. Why is halal slaughter worse than conventional slaughter (answer: those who want you to sign anti-halal petitions want to end *all* slaughter, this is just a way to get at that)? Fact is, we get emotionally upset because of the seemingly cruel way of halal slaughter, cutting a conscious animal's throat and bleeding it out. But the laws of halal slaughter require probably better treatment of the animal than Western methods: it must be done with a very sharp knife, and not in the presence of other animals, for instance (see http://www.mustaqim.co.uk/halal.htm ). A very sharp cut in itself is not painful, as many humans will know from experience; and cutting the main vessels to the brain will cause unconsciousness very fast. There has been a German study of this : http://www.halalfocus.com/artman2/uploa ... t_1978.pdf is a translation. In addition, in some countries, mild stunning is used before halal slaughter. So before jumping to support what I consider questionable arguments and a petition, think: who is arguing for the petition? Are there arguments sound? For whose benefit?

Quote:

Objections against halal slaughter are often based on emotion rather than facts.

Indeed. But as you and I both know, Cobie, objections from ARs on everything from scientific research to wildlife management techniques to animal husbandry, usually are based on emotions not facts. The appeal to emotion fallacy is the ARs biggest weapon. And a lot of people drink the kool-aid without question.

In fact a lot of those ARA fanatics want to believe the worst so they can climb on their emotional pedestal. From that plateau they will trivilize the truthful facts which show the ARA beliefs to be based in ignorance . It becomes the hope of ARA that other humans can appear cruel so the Saints can come marching in looking for cash or acknowlegement that the ARA have evolved so much further then the baseness of their fellow human beings..

_________________I use red, not because of anger but to define my posts to catch rebuttals latter and it makes the quote feature redundent for me. The rest of you pick your own color.

Although all slaughter is unpleasant, religious slaughter where the animal is not pre stunned, but fully conscious whilst its throat is sliced open, then hoisted up on hooks through it's hind quarters and left for about 10 minutes until it bleeds to death is downright cruel, sadistic and barbaric. If you disagree with this form of slaughter or would like some more information, would you please click the link and sign the petition. Thankshttp://www.gopetition.com/petition/38160.html

So anyway Kate, I find it slightly unfortunate that the title of the petition is ``Religious Slaughter`, as the real crux of the issue is ``Hoist and Slaughter``. i agree with the reason for the petition but wish the animal welfare organization had given it a more precise title. Regardless, I get the point and have signed the petition. Thank you for bringing the hoist and slaughter issue in the UK to our (my) attention. Cheers.

I read the petition's line differently - once an animal's throat has been cut (which results in very fast loss of consciousness), the animal is *then* (the petition says, meaning, after) hoisted (so as to prevent blood covering the carcass making it -religiously- unclean) - so in my reading, this is just a petition that unless read carefully, may be presented against halal/kosher slaughter per se.

After watching a video of a cow being slaughtered the Halal way, I will state that I could never buy halal slaughtered meat. The man was bleeding out the cow for several minutes while the cow had cramps and struggeled to stay on it's feet. It truly is a terrible thing to watch.

Thanks to those for signing the petition. The petition is against religious slaughter in the UK, which involves cutting the animals throat whilst fully conscious and then hoisting the animals upside down until they slowly bleed to death. I am not an animal rights activist, I just care for all animals. There is no need for scarcasm. If you are ok with this kind of torture to animals, then that is your perogative.

I read the petition's line differently - once an animal's throat has been cut (which results in very fast loss of consciousness), the animal is *then* (the petition says, meaning, after) hoisted (so as to prevent blood covering the carcass making it -religiously- unclean) - so in my reading, this is just a petition that unless read carefully, may be presented against halal/kosher slaughter per se.

You nailed the real purpose of such a petition Cobie. I don't try and force Hindu people to eat beef & I wouldn't force my emotions upon Halal or Kosher slaughter. However there are quite a few people who will paint false impressions in such a petition so that they can appear as Saints over the rest of society.

_________________I use red, not because of anger but to define my posts to catch rebuttals latter and it makes the quote feature redundent for me. The rest of you pick your own color.